Does USCCB tacitly approve of a morally offensive movie?

[Balance]

Boanerges:

The Doctors of the Church knew what sin was and treated it as such. They used harsh words at times because of the damage it had wrought among the faithful.

Boanerges

another post - so much I disagree with you about! I’d love to sit down with you over a beer or a coffee and really chew this over! you sound thoughtful and intelligent - I think it’d be a good discussion. a fiery one too.

What do I disagree with here? that the Doctors’ language is what we should be using now. You have to remember that we live in a different age - 2000 years of human and Christian history has seen a development in thought, sociology, psychology, theology and so on.

(Let me clarify here - am I saying “times have changed, actually, you know, and homosexual relationships and acts are OK these days and we should realise that and get with it”? - NO! the Church’s teaching on this area of sexuallity is, of course, timeless. (And, just in case you were wondering, yes, I agree with that teaching - all of it).)

What I am saying is that in this day and age we need to talk about sin differently. Sin is still sin, our convictions about sin are still as strong as the Church Fathers’, but the world (and the Church at large) is not going to listen in the same way as 2000 years ago.

Perhaps I’m saying that there is simply no place, now, for harsh words - at least for unformed Catholics and people of no faith. I don’t mind harsh words myself because I’ve been walking with God a while and he and different mentors and friends and have had many harsh words with me so I can handle it.
But my friend A will just switch off when I try that with him - but when I talk not about apologetics or scriptural prohibitions or tough talking from Saints or deep theology but simply about love, and simply about God, he listens, and asks me questions, and nods, and laughs, and cries.

 

[Confiteor]

Balance:

This sort of comment is, I think, basically what I’ve been objecting to all along. It implies an ignorance (please, no offence intended) of how the church has always embraced art and considered it a way of meeting God and of understanding what it is to be human, what it is to be Christian.
Consider John Paul II, a playwright, actor and poet. Consider John of the Cross, a doctor of the Church, and a poet. Therese of Lisiuex, another Doctor, and a playwright and actor. Think of all the paintings and statues and stained glass windows throughout the Catholic world. I hear that Benedict XIV used Dante’s poetry as inspiration, in part, for his first encyclical.
“Leave the artistic stuff to other [presumably you mean secular] reviewers”??? so bishops have no business concerning themselves with “artistic stuff?” I absolutely and vehemently disagree.
I find the Bishops’ reviews very valuable. I hear of a film, say Brokeback Mountain, and hear of its reputed quality and some of it’s subject matter and think, “well, those themes/ideas aren’t ones I particularly want to see, because I know what I believe about them - I wonder if there is any merit in the film apart from that? If there might, in fact, be a reason for watching it?” and so I read the review and say, “well, nup, not for me.”
BUT I feel no outrage - because outrage is a waste of energy. I’d rather just get on with loving the people around me, some of them gay, and keep on trying to show Christ to them.
I guess I don’t really believe there’s a “gay agenda” or if there is, it’s only one of many “agendas” (agendum?) and there’s no way we can “fight them all”.
Is this a lack of courage, a lack of love and reverence for holy things? NO. It’s simply saying there will always be films made that show aspects of human existence that aren’t as dignified as they could be (that’s another way of saying “that show evil and mortal sin” - a better way of saying that, I think) and censorship of such films isn’t the answer.
I feel some Catholics would love a return to the days of burning “heretics” at the stake, I seriously do, and when I meet and talk with such people - people who consider themselves Orthodox and Holy, it sends a shiver down my spine. Now, that’s maybe a bit extreme - or those people are only an extreme few - but even a lesser degree of that extreme is still chilling.
We need to enter into a conversation with people who don’t know Christ, not talk at them.

READ Benedict’s encyclical. he says there are times to speak truth and times simply to love, without words.

The Church did not commission this “art.” I don’t propose burning anybody, but the bishops’ movie review rating scale is based on suitability for particular audiences and moral offensiveness (the O rating); there is a disconnect between their rating system and the reviews based on artistry.

My preference would be for them to discontinue the reviews since this like most USCCB activities s paid for by assessments from dioceses and ultimately, lay Catholics. Ratings based on morality are okay, but there invite comments like “book burners” and “heretic hunters,” so I would not mind if they stopped them entirely.

I agree with your last statement but I’m not sure how that would justify misrating a movie as the USCCB review did initially. I think it was more of a response for people who immediately expected Pope Benedict to hammer out dissent and liturgical abuses and such. He is firm but charitable and time will tell.

 

[Boanerges]

What also destroys children is rigorousness, smallmindedness and taking away, or stunting, their own choices and there desire to think for themself.

You have no children thus, have no authority or credibility to say what you say. What examples of “destruction” can you to cite? Having quoted Inter Mirifica earlier, it’s puzzling you continue to contradict it.

My EXPERIENCE proves otherwise. Rigorousness defines parameters very well and children respond nicely. They know what LIMITS are and LEARN how tho think. They STAND for something definitive. They stand on the ROCK! Open-mindedness, in your case, has bred a plethora of “theologians” in the Church that support things like women priests, married clergy, giving the Eucharist to anyone who presents themselves, etc. So, without parameters DEFINED by the Church, the smoke of Satan enters into it.

In this part of the world, unfounded comments like this are often followed up by the term “HOOEY”! Until you can cite your experiences where rigorousness has bred small-mindedness, stunted growth or thinking for themselves, your jeopardize your credibility.

AMDG
Boanerges

 

[Boanerges]

Balance:

another post - so much I disagree with you about! I’d love to sit down with you over a beer or a coffee and really chew this over! you sound thoughtful and intelligent - I think it’d be a good discussion. a fiery one too.

What do I disagree with here? that the Doctors’ language is what we should be using now. You have to remember that we live in a different age - 2000 years of human and Christian history has seen a development in thought, sociology, psychology, theology and so on.

(Let me clarify here - am I saying “times have changed, actually, you know, and homosexual relationships and acts are OK these days and we should realise that and get with it”? - NO! the Church’s teaching on this area of sexuallity is, of course, timeless. (And, just in case you were wondering, yes, I agree with that teaching - all of it).)

What I am saying is that in this day and age we need to talk about sin differently. Sin is still sin, our convictions about sin are still as strong as the Church Fathers’, but the world (and the Church at large) is not going to listen in the same way as 2000 years ago.

Perhaps I’m saying that there is simply no place, now, for harsh words - at least for unformed Catholics and people of no faith. I don’t mind harsh words myself because I’ve been walking with God a while and he and different mentors and friends and have had many harsh words with me so I can handle it.
But my friend A will just switch off when I try that with him - but when I talk not about apologetics or scriptural prohibitions or tough talking from Saints or deep theology but simply about love, and simply about God, he listens, and asks me questions, and nods, and laughs, and cries.

To expound on what you say, here’s a very good example of indecision followed up with damage control and then, doing the right thing. Cardinal George is an outstanding prelate and good for the Church. But, he let things get out of hand somewhat and, OUT OF LOVE, has to discipline. He’s a true hero.

You’ll also notice his quote: “All of us are sinners, but there are types of perversion that are completely incompatible with the calling toward ordained priesthood.” This speaks volumes as to the level of seriousness this sin is as compared to others. The inherent destruction to the faithful by homosexual practice is on a level with no other sin. Second, Dante’s Inferno speaks to this particular sin and also places it on a level of seriousness like no other.

Placating the homosexual agenda is only feeding the innocent to the wolves.

AMDG
Boanerges

 

[Boanerges]

True freedom is not the ability to do (think) what you want. It is the ability to do (think) what you ought.

AMDG
Boanerges

 

[Balance]

Boanerges:

You have no children thus, have no authority or credibility to say what you say. What examples of “destruction” can you to cite? .
AMDG
Boanerges

This is on a par with somebody saying “a priest isn’t married (or has no kids) thus has no credibility when talking about marriage.” (you’ve heard that before, I’m sure.)
???
now THAT’s hooey. just because I don’t have children doesn’t mean I can’t talk about issues to do with children. Even if I hadn’t spent two years in full time youth work, running retreats for something like 8000 highschool aged young people (and many younger as well as families too), I’d still have credibility - even simply from my own experience coupled with reason, commonsense, history, church teaching, Scripture, sacred writings…

to suggest that someone can’t talk about a topic or issue because they have no direct experience of it is like saying you have to have committed a sin to say why it’s not good for you.

come on now.

 

[Balance]

Boanerges:

Having quoted Inter Mirifica earlier, it’s puzzling you continue to contradict it.

AMDG
Boanerges

I’m puzzled too - how am I contradicting it?

 

[Balance]

Boanerges:

My EXPERIENCE proves otherwise. Rigorousness defines parameters very well and children respond nicely. They know what LIMITS are and LEARN how tho think. They STAND for something definitive. They stand on the ROCK! Open-mindedness, in your case, has bred a plethora of “theologians” in the Church that support things like women priests, married clergy, giving the Eucharist to anyone who presents themselves, etc. So, without parameters DEFINED by the Church, the smoke of Satan enters into it.

Boanerges

you use “rigorousness” like it’s a good thing. it never is - you need to use another word to descibe what you mean when you use that one.

people (young people) need roots (what you call limits) and they need wings (the ability to think for themselves.) BOTH.
I have good moral sense not because my parents told me what not to do but because they told me what to do - love, live, read, push myself, think, engage with other people and be real - and they lived this out in their own lives.

I do remember my mother telling me I couldn’t watch a movie (The Piano) because it had a sex scene in it. And I wasn’t allowed to watch Once Were Warriors because it’s very violent.
She relented and said, “you’re an adult, watch The Piano if you want but I’d rather you didn’t.”
We could criticise The Piano for being pretentious, but it’s also a very human story. I was not at all harmed by the sex scene and was moved by the film. It would have been far better for my mother to have said, Watch it if you want then we’ll talk about it.

 

[Balance]

Boanerges:

What examples of “destruction” can you to cite? AMDG
Boanerges

A choice for celibacy, for chastity, HAS to be a real choice. It can’t be something that a child or young adult (or adult) is told that they must do because it’s what the Church says, end of story.

An example of destruction? As I’ve said before, I’ve seen so many of my unmarried friends, committed, faithful Catholics, get to their late 20s or early 30s and then give up on virginity and celibacy, saying “it’s too hard” or “I’m just so lonely” or “I might never get married.” and when I’ve talked to them about it, I realise that their reasons for being celibate or staying a virgin were because it’s “just how they’d been brought up.” they’d been told “you have to stay a virgin and this is why” but the whys were too abstract, or unexplained.
Thanks be to God for John Paul II and his teachings on what we know as Theology of the Body for the way he’s lead us to a more whole, more lifegiving, more integrated, more liberated, more divine and more human view of sexuality and sex.
Was John Paul happy with the way sex and sexuality had been presented or taught by the Church for the last 2000 years? was he happy with the “don’t do it or you’ll burn in hell” approach?

No way. He wanted to wash our minds clean and blow out the cobwebs and make us think. He knew that a healthy approach to sexuality could only come from a choice for that healthy approach, not a choice against an unhealthy approach. our teaching (you and I, lay people in our respective areas of ministry) need to teach sexuality as something that is a “yes” not a “no”, as a “do” not a"don’t do".

any other way leads to destruction. destruction including a lesser good - as when, for example, a person is a virgin but is so twisted up in their sexuality because it’s all about prohibitions that they can’t enjoy sex when they get married - I’ve seen that in people I know too.

 

[Balance]

Boanerges:

True freedom is not the ability to do (think) what you want. It is the ability to do (think) what you ought.

AMDG
Boanerges

I agree - up to a point. there’s less value in thinking something because you opught too than thinking something because you’ve looked at it from both sides, argued for and against it, chewed it over, asked questions of it, always in prayer and with reference to scripture and tradition, and then decided.

here’s the thing. why is the church in the state it is today? because Catholics don’t know their faith. they havent done the above. and so we have a church largely (but less and less by the day) consisting of people who live, to look at, good moral lives, but don’t do much more than that. to put it a little negatively, they toe the line because there’s a vague sense that they really should.
and so the world sees a church that makes these extraordinary claims but is actually very very ordinary.

if more Catholics actually entered into a dialogue with their Church and their God and asked questions of their own personal faith, many would come to realsie waht the Catholic faith actually profess, and they’d reject it and leave.
But it’s easier to just have a list of rules to follow, and trudge along.

to progress on the Christian journey, one has to continually ask questions, seeking the answers in prayer and in a deeper reading of scripture and doctrine and holy writings. when you stop moving forward you stagnate.
but it’s easier for teachers and parents to hand out rules than to enter into conversation.
easier to say “Ban Brokeback Mountain” than to say “so why do you think active homosexuality is a healthy and dignified lifestyle?”
easier to say “don’t” fornicate than to say “do” live with heart and passion. Because that leads into a discussion: what is “heart and passion?” and that migh t just take too much effort to run with.
I’m not saying here that you go for the option that takes less effort - you sound like you put a lot of time and effort into teaching and instruction - I’m just decrying a particular mindset which I see again and again.

 

[Balance]

Boanerges:

Brokeback Mountain]http://www.usccb.org/movies/b/brokebackmountain.shtml

The above movie review of a pro-homosexual, pro"adultery" relationship between two men is suspect at best. Although mentioning that the movie is rated “O” for morally offensive, this one line really bothers me:

Just what is the USCCB trying to tell us here? Is there a tacit approval of a movie if the story line, acting, directing, or anything else is “pleasing” despite the offensive nature? Don’t we have enough problem with deviant sex in the world without placating the deviants?

Looks like the bishops (by allowing such garbage to exist with their approval) have lost their minds!

St. Athanasius, pray for us!

Boanerges

going back to your original post -
a resounding YES to your question. there is tacit approval - more than tacit approval of, in fact: there can be outright encouragemnent of a movie even if there’s something offensive in it.
go to this link and read it, and follow the link in it to the USCCB’s item on the Vatican’s 45 Films of note list.
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0411fea1.asp

or read Decent Films. com’s article on it at
www.decentfilms.com/sections/articles/2572

EG: Schindler’s list implies fornication has occured - that’s “deviant sex” to use your term - a emotive and appalling term which, unsurprisingly, doesn’t feature anywhere (that I know of - I’d be very surprised if it was there) in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I’m curious as to why you haven’t commented on the Vatican’s list of 45 “films of note” - despite several references to it by me - is it because you’re avoiding the question?

 

[Balance]

Boanerges:

What examples of “destruction” can you to cite? AMDG
Boanerges

It’s a new university year here and I’m looking at the freshfaced and eager first years (you call them freshmen I think?) and wondering how many have come through Catholic schools. I wonder how many of them will be losing their virginity in the next couple of weeks. I wonder how many of those will lose their virginity not simply because they were drunk or aroused or lusty (they might be the ones without any sort of religious education)but because they made a deliberate choice, feeling that they may as well get it over with, that sex is no big deal anyway or that now that tjhey’d left the confines of church, school and family, they could finally get it on.

I wonder how many of them were told, all through school, “don’t do it”. * I wonder what destruction that caused.*

I wonder if they’d been told instead not a list of don’ts: don’t have sex, don’t get into heavy petting, don’t have oral sex, don’t have lustful thoughts, don’t look at sex scenes in films, don’t talk about sex, don’t wear revealing clothing, don’t have romantic relationships till you’re older, don’t make friends with bad people but more a list of dos: do ask questions, do think, do read, do seek friendships with all kinds of people, do challenge, do talk about sex, do be dignified, do be real, do have integrity, do look at and engage with all kinds of art, do pray, do be honest, do use your imagination and ask “what if” - maybe then they’d be making better choices and less mistakes; maybe then they’d be choosing an authentic and lifegiving chastity instead of a rigorous, shallow and fundamentally flawed abstinence.

but, like I said, that’d be hard work wouldn’t it? I know that after presenting the sessions on sex and sexuality that I did in high schools, I was menatlly exhausted. we’d told the students to ask whatver they wanted and they did. it would have been a lot less tiring to say here’s the rules, follow them.

George Cardinal Pell, in Australia (do you know him? I think you’d like him. I disagree with him on many things but on many others he’s wonderful. See if you can find out about him

 

[Balance]

• an intersting character. some would say a reactionary, a divisive figure, but he’s above that I think. for example, he is criticised for not giving to communion to people wearing rainbow sashes - a public statement (of acceptance of homosexual acts) at Mass - a place not suited for such a statement - but his actual handson, practical work dialoguing and engaging with the gay community goes unreported. He’s not, actually, a “stand up on high and denounce evil” kind of guy.
  Anyway, getting off target: Pell has recently set up a university in Sydney that will give an old style liberal education - liberal here meaning, (in it’s more correct sense, not how it’s used by some Catholics as a pejorative) that focus on the humanities - culture, philosophy, art etc. His thinking being that people have lost that sense of humanity that a study of thes e things give - that they are ways of meeting God. that there is lots in those areas that challenge the Church and challenge God but that only good can come out of meeting that challenge, entering into that conversation with ideas, beliefs and practices that challenge Christianity.

 

[Boanerges]

Balance:

This is on a par with somebody saying “a priest isn’t married (or has no kids) thus has no credibility when talking about marriage.” (you’ve heard that before, I’m sure.)
???
now THAT’s hooey. just because I don’t have children doesn’t mean I can’t talk about issues to do with children. Even if I hadn’t spent two years in full time youth work, running retreats for something like 8000 highschool aged young people (and many younger as well as families too), I’d still have credibility - even simply from my own experience coupled with reason, commonsense, history, church teaching, Scripture, sacred writings…

to suggest that someone can’t talk about a topic or issue because they have no direct experience of it is like saying you have to have committed a sin to say why it’s not good for you.

come on now.

Either you have tangible experience you can share or not. By this respon se, the answer is no.

AMDG

Boanerges

 

[Balance]

Boanerges:

Either you have tangible experience you can share or not. By this respon se, the answer is no.

AMDG

Boanerges

tangible experience? so what’s a priest’s tangible experience of marriage?
what he’s read about it and what he’s heard about it from married couples.

what’s my tangible experience of sex and sexuality? my own life, and the lives of many of those 8000 young people I came in contact with; the experiences of my friends and family, and the young people in the oyuth group - is that enuff “tangible experience” for you?

what are you getting at?

 

[Balance]

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0411fea1.asp

are you avoiding the question?

 

[Boanerges]

Balance:

I wonder how many of them were told, all through school, “don’t do it”. * I wonder what destruction that caused.*

I wonder if they’d been told instead not a list of don’ts: don’t have sex, don’t get into heavy petting, don’t have oral sex, don’t have lustful thoughts, don’t look at sex scenes in films, don’t talk about sex, don’t wear revealing clothing, don’t have romantic relationships till you’re older, don’t make friends with bad people but more a list of dos: do ask questions, do think, do read, do seek friendships with all kinds of people, do challenge, do talk about sex, do be dignified, do be real, do have integrity, do look at and engage with all kinds of art, do pray, do be honest, do use your imagination and ask “what if” - maybe then they’d be making better choices and less mistakes; maybe then they’d be choosing an authentic and lifegiving chastity instead of a rigorous, shallow and fundamentally flawed abstinence.

but, like I said, that’d be hard work wouldn’t it? I know that after presenting the sessions on sex and sexuality that I did in high schools, I was menatlly exhausted. we’d told the students to ask whatver they wanted and they did. it would have been a lot less tiring to say here’s the rules, follow them.

Well, if this is how you presented your subject matter, I can see why you’re exhausted! You missed HALF of the teaching!

Like you would say no to drinking and driving or no to handling a loaded weapon without proper instruction, you HAVE to include WHY!!! You’ve got to give them the “WHY” or you’re wasting time, theirs and yours. Otherwise, they just blow you off no matter how much talking you do. Soft-selling it doesn’t work and never has. Point blank is the only way not only to drive home the point but to give them the tools to work with. This is what works and works WELL. Personal experince has proven this time and again.

The Church followed your “precept” for teaching for the last 40 years and look where it got us? I’m very curious how do you square the Ten Commandments with what you teach? Lots of “don’ts” in there…I certainly hope you don’t put your “spin” on them and make them the “ten suggestions”.

AMDG

Boanerges

 

[Boanerges]

Balance:

tangible experience? so what’s a priest’s tangible experience of marriage?
what he’s read about it and what he’s heard about it from married couples.

what’s my tangible experience of sex and sexuality? my own life, and the lives of many of those 8000 young people I came in contact with; the experiences of my friends and family, and the young people in the oyuth group - is that enuff “tangible experience” for you?

what are you getting at?

No, not really. To minimize my experiences and elevate yours to an equal footing is not common sense. Just like a soldiers experiences learned in combat versus a new recruit can be fatal. Ever heard of Pam Stenzel? She teaches abstinence resulting from “personal expereince”. Experience gives credibility and authority to any subject matter.

AMDG
Boanerges

 

[Balance]

Boanerges:

Well, if this is how you presented your subject matter, I can see why you’re exhausted! You missed HALF of the teaching!

Like you would say no to drinking and driving or no to handling a loaded weapon without proper instruction, you HAVE to include WHY!!! You’ve got to give them the “WHY” or you’re wasting time, theirs and yours. Otherwise, they just blow you off no matter how much talking you do. Soft-selling it doesn’t work and never has. Point blank is the only way not only to drive home the point but to give them the tools to work with. This is what works and works WELL. Personal experince has proven this time and again.

The Church followed your “precept” for teaching for the last 40 years and look where it got us? I’m very curious how do you square the Ten Commandments with what you teach? Lots of “don’ts” in there…I certainly hope you don’t put your “spin” on them and make them the “ten suggestions”.

AMDG

Boanerges

no, the Church didn’t follow this precept for 40 yrs. you *could * maybe say it this way - we threw out the “rulebook” , the don’ts, but didn’t say the dos. just muddled along. now, we’re starting to talk about the dos.

my point is - you start with the dos and why - that’s the best way.

starting with the don’ts is not going to work any more.

 

[Balance]

Boanerges:

No, not really. To minimize my experiences and elevate yours to an equal footing is not common sense. Just like a soldiers experiences learned in combat versus a new recruit can be fatal. Ever heard of Pam Stenzel? She teaches abstinence resulting from “personal expereince”. Experience gives credibility and authority to any subject matter.

AMDG
Boanerges

so you’re saying becuase you’ve got nine kids you’re more qulifies to talk about this? nup. i could say that becuase of my experiences with those 8000 kids I’ve got more than you.
we’re not talking about an equal footing. is soemone with 15 kids more qualified to talk about this than you? of course not.